Jump to content

Studio Monitors for Near Field Listening?


luddite

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, danalog02 said:

When mixing, you're trying to make the mix sound balanced across a wide array of potential listening situations: car, headphones, earbuds, cheap speakers, party speakers, etc. We were usually trying to make it sound as good as we could across the range.

 

I've never understood that rationale.

 

Why not make it sound the best it can, as in "right"?  Let the end user salt and pepper to taste if necessary.  Salt and pepper can't fix what isn't there anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, glens said:

 

I've never understood that rationale.

 

Why not make it sound the best it can, as in "right"?  Let the end user salt and pepper to taste if necessary.  Salt and pepper can't fix what isn't there anymore.

Because "right" is an extremely subjective argument. Of course as a listener and an engineer I always want to get the best sound possible, but at the end of the day, it isn't my vote that counts. The artist or producer has final say over a mix and they often don't have the best ears, but as a working stiff, I wanted to get paid and perhaps repeat business. It's a contributing factor as to why I don't do it anymore professionally.

 

If I knew it was headed for mastering, especially to a mastering engineer I trusted and respected, I'd often leave a couple of rough edges that I knew they could smooth out and make it tighter and more cohesive overall.

 

And addressing the topic of "right" and "accuracy" in listening, folks, it's a fool's errand. With the exception of high end classical recordings where the engineer is simply documenting a performance and attempting to capture the dynamics of an orchestra and the space of a beautiful music hall, recordings are "assembled" in parts. There may be a rough track as laid down by a band or a team of studio musicians, but there will be LOTS of overdubs, comps, edits, tweaks, leveling, dynamic range limiting or compression, equalization, AD and DA conversions, time alignment, etc, etc. The track will be full spindle mutilated and that's IF it doesn't get sent to someone else for remixing or secondary work. Every microphone, preamp, converter and plugin add their own flavor to the mix.

 

What I'm trying to say here is that your favorite records were created through a series of happenstance situations and compromises. There is no "right" way to listen. If it sounds good, it IS good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was nicely put and I fully understand all that.  My unstated point was not "hey, that drum set doesn't sound to me like my drum set while I'm playing it," rather that much "popular" music seems to have been mixed to sound good on speakers with bloated bass, dull highs, and little-to-no dynamic capability.

 

I've picked up several "remastered" versions of '80s CD releases [edit: which I already had] (largely of pre-CD original works) (and mostly for the additional tracks) and without fail the sonic results may be cleaner from some technical aspects but the dynamics and more "natural" tonal balance are all but obliterated.

 

Back in the '70's I favored the "cut corner" import LPs over the "American" issues not only because they were nominally half the price, but they flat out "sounded" better.  Especially the Zeppelin stuff from the UK.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't rightly know just what it is the engineers are largely doing these days, but it isn't making the end results sound good.  If they were doing whatever it is they're doing behind the board(s) at a big live show I'm confident they'd be escorted outside the venue in a hot minute.  If not by their bosses, at least by the "customers."

 

What's so difficult about using decent playback equipment and making it sound halfway decent?  This isn't just about this week's paycheck, it's something that will likely be set in stone for all posterity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glens said:

That was nicely put and I fully understand all that.  My unstated point was not "hey, that drum set doesn't sound to me like my drum set while I'm playing it," rather that much "popular" music seems to have been mixed to sound good on speakers with bloated bass, dull highs, and little-to-no dynamic capability.

 

I've picked up several "remastered" versions of '80s CD releases (largely of pre-CD original works) (and mostly for the additional tracks) and without fail the sonic results may be cleaner from some technical aspects but the dynamics and more "natural" tonal balance are all but obliterated.

 

Back in the '70's I favored the "cut corner" import LPs over the "American" issues not only because they were nominally half the price, but they flat out "sounded" better.  Especially the Zeppelin stuff from the UK.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't rightly know just what it is the engineers are largely doing these days, but it isn't making the end results sound good.  If they were doing whatever it is they're doing behind the board(s) at a big live show I'm confident they'd be escorted outside the venue in a hot minute.  If not by their bosses, at least by the "customers."

 

What's so difficult about using decent playback equipment and making it sound halfway decent?  This isn't just about this week's paycheck, it's something that will likely be set in stone for all posterity.

Just for the record, every engineer I've ever met is a huge music fan, if not musician, and can readily rattle off his/her/its favorite records and how those albums got them into recording in the first place. Studios are generally very well thought out and engineers take pride in their equipment choices and will agonize over how things sound.

 

A big reason your "cheap" albums sound good is that the plant pressing the records had to turn the volume way down in order for the record to play without the needle jumping out every other second. The records were made thinner, with less raw material, so they couldn't make them as hot (and distortion prone) as the heavier records. Since a record is literally destroying itself, bit by bit, every time it is played (the needle quickly melting the vinyl before the vinyl is rapidly cooled, trapping dust and dirt forever), the cheap records wouldn't last as long.

 

Remasters are a whole 'nother matter. I hate most of them as they're never a straight transfer. Remastering engineers always feel the need to leave their "sonic signature" on something, generally meaning a smiley-face EQ and squashing the life out of it. It just makes more money for the record label as they can re-release catalog material they own to squeeze a few more drops of blood from a rock. I went back and bought a ton of first generation CD transfers of some of my favorite albums, making sure to get the early editions as they were more or less straight from the master tapes without the new (at the time) Sonic Solutions No Noise noise reduction, which is hot garbage. Had to eBay a lot of them to make sure I was getting the right catalog numbers. Then I ripped them into full-range FLAC files using AccurateRip for verification. They sound amazing. Anything past 16bit, 44.1k for analog transfers is a waste of hard drive space. Analog only has so much dynamic range and frequency response to begin with. Redbook CD standard is just ducky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

The artist or producer has final say over a mix and they often don't have the best ears, but as a working stiff, I wanted to get paid and perhaps repeat business. It's a contributing factor as to why I don't do it anymore professionally.

I've read this so many times that candidly I feel nauseated when writing this--once again. 

 

If I were in your shoes, I would personally hide your contributions to that business when contributing to this website--or at least completely disown all practices used today for popular music "creation".  That isn't justification enough in my book for what's being done to popular music recordings (vs. classical and perhaps mainstream jazz). 

 

When I take apart a music track from an album produced since 1991 (the year that multiband compressors statistically came into widespread use), I see and hear increasing amounts vs. time of damage that has been impressed into the recordings.  Nowadays, what's typically left over for the consumer is like corned beef hash. 

 

29 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

...And addressing the topic of "right" and "accuracy" in listening, folks, it's a fool's errand.

Again, I really do think you picked the wrong web site to start this argument (yet again). Perhaps it might be better received at a mastering forum for those trying to break into the business (...poor souls...).  They may value this type of advice.  You're certainly welcome to voice your views here, but note that there are more than a few folks here that are also going to voice theirs. 

 

37 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

With the exception of high end classical recordings where the engineer is simply documenting a performance and attempting to capture the dynamics of an orchestra and the space of a beautiful music hall, recordings are "assembled" in parts.

Really?  Even live performance?  I think you're trying to justify something that I certainly wouldn't.

 

"Assembling recordings" (multitrack recording) is actually the problem--the point where good musicians actually lose control of their product. And you can hear it on higher quality models of Klipsch loudspeakers--in spades. 

 

43 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

There may be a rough track as laid down by a band or a team of studio musicians, but there will be LOTS of overdubs, comps, edits, tweaks, leveling, dynamic range limiting or compression, equalization, AD and DA conversions, time alignment, etc, etc. The track will be full spindle mutilated and that's IF it doesn't get sent to someone else for remixing or secondary work.

Sounds like you're searching for catharsis here.

 

43 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

Every microphone, preamp, converter and plugin add their own flavor to the mix.

I think you're losing your focus here, however.  If the standard in the business were transparent recordings (as it is for classical and jazz), then the above statement wouldn't be very much of a factor to talk about. 

 

45 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

What I'm trying to say here is that your favorite records were created through a series of happenstance situations and compromises.

I think you're in danger of being called "a bit self absorbed" here.  All music is created like this.  If it weren't, it would be called programming.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

The records were made thinner,

 

Actually, they were generally heavier pressings with fuller sound than those made here for here.  Go figure.

 

I, too, am casually on a mission to locate more early CDs to rip to flac.  I still have 30 or 40 more-favorite LPs, some of which have never been subsequently released on CD, but have not had a working turntable since about '85.

 

19 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

Anything past 16bit, 44.1k for analog transfers is a waste of hard drive space. Analog only has so much dynamic range and frequency response to begin with. Redbook CD standard is just ducky.

 

Fully agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of great music is coming out of home-made studios now-a-days. It sounds better to me because it is probably processed a lot less than music coming out of corporate studios. I think it's for the exact reasons danalog02 mentions. There are no "corporate" mixing/mastering decisions being made, no customer that has to be made happy, no mastering being done that squashes all the life out of good mixes. I don't mind a creaking chair, or a musician coughing, or instruments that come in at higher or lower volumes. What I can't stand is the compression done at music peaks where multiple instruments/voices are playing, making soaring music sound like shrill noise. With all the home-made recording done now, it's getting easier to tell the difference. I'm listening to a song right now that sounds so squashed I feel embarrassed for the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

Just for the record, every engineer I've ever met is a huge music fan, if not musician, and can readily rattle off his/her/its favorite records and how those albums got them into recording in the first place.

I've read a few of these self-testimonials.  Candidly, I'm usually not very impressed by the breath of musical tastes by these "engineers" (where I live they typically can't use that title legally--since they usually have no formal training/education in the disciplines). 

 

33 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

Remasters are a whole 'nother matter. I hate most of them as they're never a straight transfer. Remastering engineers always feel the need to leave their "sonic signature" on something, generally meaning a smiley-face EQ and squashing the life out of it. It just makes more money for the record label as they can re-release catalog material they own to squeeze a few more drops of blood from a rock. I went back and bought a ton of first generation CD transfers of some of my favorite albums, making sure to get the early editions as they were more or less straight from the master tapes without the new (at the time) Sonic Solutions No Noise noise reduction, which is hot garbage. Had to eBay a lot of them to make sure I was getting the right catalog numbers. Then I ripped them into full-range FLAC files using AccurateRip for verification. They sound amazing. Anything past 16bit, 44.1k for analog transfers is a waste of hard drive space. Analog only has so much dynamic range and frequency response to begin with. Redbook CD standard is just ducky.

We finally agree--with reservations regarding mastering EQ used on some of these pre-multiband compression recordings in order to make them sound louder via bass attenuation below 100 Hz.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chris A said:

I've read this so many times that candidly I feel nauseated when writing this--once again. 

 

If I were in your shoes, I would personally hide your contributions to that business when contributing to this website--or at least completely disown all practices used today for popular music "creation".  That isn't justification enough in my book for what's being done to popular music recordings (vs. classical and perhaps mainstream jazz). 

 

When I take apart a music track from an album produced since 1991 (the year that multiband compressors statistically came into widespread use), I see and hear increasing amounts vs. time of damage that has been impressed into the recordings.  Nowadays, what's typically left over for the consumer is like corned beef hash. 

 

Again, I really do think you picked the wrong web site to start this argument (yet again). Perhaps it might be better received at a mastering forum for those trying to break into the business (...poor souls...).  They may value this type of advice.  You're certainly welcome to voice your views here, but note that there are more than a few folks here that are also going to voice theirs. 

 

Really?  Even live performance?  I think you're trying to justify something that I certainly wouldn't.

 

"Assembling recordings" (multitrack recording) is actually the problem--the point where good musicians actually lose control of their product. And you can hear it on higher quality models of Klipsch loudspeakers--in spades. 

 

Sounds like you're searching for catharsis here.

 

I think you're losing your focus here, however.  If the standard in the business were transparent recordings (as it is for classical and jazz), then the above statement wouldn't be very much of a factor to talk about. 

 

I think you're in danger of being called "a bit self absorbed" here.  All music is created like this.  If it weren't, it would be called programming.

 

Chris

Hey Chris, fortunately, I don't care what you think. I was adding my perceptions to questions or topics posed by others. Have a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chris A said:

I've read this so many times that candidly I feel nauseated when writing this--once again. 

 

If I were in your shoes, I would personally hide your contributions to that business when contributing to this website--or at least completely disown all practices used today for popular music "creation".  That isn't justification enough in my book for what's being done to popular music recordings (vs. classical and perhaps mainstream jazz). 

 

When I take apart a music track from an album produced since 1991 (the year that multiband compressors statistically came into widespread use), I see and hear increasing amounts vs. time of damage that has been impressed into the recordings.  Nowadays, what's typically left over for the consumer is like corned beef hash. 

 

Again, I really do think you picked the wrong web site to start this argument (yet again). Perhaps it might be better received at a mastering forum for those trying to break into the business (...poor souls...).  They may value this type of advice.  You're certainly welcome to voice your views here, but note that there are more than a few folks here that are also going to voice theirs. 

 

Really?  Even live performance?  I think you're trying to justify something that I certainly wouldn't.

 

"Assembling recordings" (multitrack recording) is actually the problem--the point where good musicians actually lose control of their product. And you can hear it on higher quality models of Klipsch loudspeakers--in spades. 

 

Sounds like you're searching for catharsis here.

 

I think you're losing your focus here, however.  If the standard in the business were transparent recordings (as it is for classical and jazz), then the above statement wouldn't be very much of a factor to talk about. 

 

I think you're in danger of being called "a bit self absorbed" here.  All music is created like this.  If it weren't, it would be called programming.

 

Chris

Chris,

Tell us how you really feel 😉.  Actually I think I know where you're coming from. For most of us on this forum, we know how much time and effort you've put into analyzing both the sound that comes out of our systems as well as the sound we put in. I say "our" because I know you helped many, including myself. I even think I remember you've devised your own system for undoing some of the damage made by the life-squeezing techniques of the studio. Feel free to carry on with your righteous indignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

Hey Chris, fortunately, I don't care what you think.

This is now clear.

 

2 minutes ago, MechEngVic said:

Actually I think I know where you're coming from.

 

Yes...from this standpoint:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MechEngVic said:

A lot of great music is coming out of home-made studios now-a-days. It sounds better to me because it is probably processed a lot less than music coming out of corporate studios. I think it's for the exact reasons danalog02 mentions. There are no "corporate" mixing/mastering decisions being made, no customer that has to be made happy, no mastering being done that squashes all the life out of good mixes. I don't mind a creaking chair, or a musician coughing, or instruments that come in at higher or lower volumes. What I can't stand is the compression done at music peaks where multiple instruments/voices are playing, making soaring music sound like shrill noise. With all the home-made recording done now, it's getting easier to tell the difference. I'm listening to a song right now that sounds so squashed I feel embarrassed for the band.

Compression can be an engineer's best friend used properly. Used improperly, it can be horrible and tragic. I will say that digital is far less forgiving than analog. Tape saturation in analog can sound nice before it distorts. Digital clipping (square waves) are nails-on-a-chalkboard awful. The loudness wars really reached nuclear status with the introduction of the Waves L1 Ultramaximizer, making ultra-hot compressed recordings the norm. For many mastering guys it was ALWAYS the final piece of the chain, being used whether it was needed or not because they could make the label happy with a louder recording (for radio) while being transparent and avoiding clipping.

 

Yes, I enjoy many indie records and the internet has been nothing but amazing for artists who want to control every step of the process and put out great sounding singles, EPs or full albums, minus filler tracks. I buy lots of stuff off Bandcamp.

Edited by danalog02
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chris A said:
18 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

Hey Chris, fortunately, I don't care what you think.

 

This is now clear.

 

Well, I think I could be friends with both of you, though obviously not at the same place and time!  ;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate anyone here.  I do hate the practices being used and attempts to justify their use.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and just for the record - Bachelor of Science - Recording Industry: Production and Technology - Middle Tennessee State University. Chair of MTSU Audio Engineering Society for 2 years. Spent 7 years as a studio manager and engineer before managing a pro audio rental and repair shop. I've figured a few things out here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chris A said:

I don't hate anyone here.  I do hate the practices being used and attempts to justify their use.

 

Chris

Then become an engineer and show us how it's done there, Sparky. (while continuing to pay the rent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touchy, too.

 

The point that I made was that, if you're getting your music education from listening to popular music on the top 40s radio (through the 1990s), streamed, etc., that isn't very "broadening" from a musicians perspective.  I've in fact been pretty underwhelmed by what I see and hear out of these mastering guys that come and go here.

 

8 minutes ago, danalog02 said:

Then become an engineer and show us how it's done there, Sparky.

I would expect nothing less than this from someone in your shoes, I suppose.  My condolences.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we shouldn't try to close this thread down via various tactics used to do just that.  It's got good information in it about studio monitors that the OP was asking for.  He didn't ask for this flame war, however.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...